Team Code: TC - 16

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JHANSAPURA

IN THE MATTERS OF:

ENVIORNMENTAL ACTIVISTS & OTHERS .... APPELLANT

V.

UNION OF INDRIKA & .... RESPONDENT

STATE GOVERNMENT OF JHANSAPURA

PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION NO. (XX)/2025

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JHANSAPURA

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIKA

Written Submissions on Behalf of the RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………………………………..3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………...………………………………………….4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………………6

STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………………………………...7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………………9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ……………………………………………………………….10

ISSUE 1: Whether the establishment of the industrial hub violates the constitutional environment
protection mandates under Article 48Aand Article 51A(g)…………………………………………. 11

ISSUE 2: Whether balancing socio-economic development with environmental protection creates

constitutional tensions ……………………………………………………………………….. 19

ISSUE 3: Whether sustainable development principles can be enforced through judicial review..23

PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………………………26

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.C. ……………………………………………………………………. SUPREME COURT

H.C. ……………………………………………………………………. HIGH COURT

A.I.R …………………………………………………………………...ALL INDIA REPORT

S.C.C……………………………………………………………………SUPREME COURT CASES

HON’BLE ………………………………………………………………. HONORABLE

SEC…………………………………………………………………….. SECTION

E.P.A. …………………………………………………………………… ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT

& -………………………………………………………………………..AND

3
 Index of Authorities

STATUTES

1. Constitution of India
2. Environment (protection) act, 1996

BOOKS, ARTICLE & TREATISES

ARVIND P. DATAR, DATAR ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WADHWA & COMPANY,

ed.2001

D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, C.K. THAKKER & S.S.
SUBRAMANI & T. S. DOABIA & B. P. BANERJEE EDS., Vol. 10, 8th ed. 2012.

D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 13th ed., 2001

DR. MAHESHWARA SWAMY, LAW RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION AND

PROTECTION, Vol. 2, 5th ed., Thomson Reuters

DR. PARAMJIT S. JASWAL, DR. NISHTHA JASWAL, VIBHUTI JASWAL, Commentary on

Environment law, 4th ed., 2016

GRANVILLE AUSTIN, THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION – CORNERSTONE OF A NATION 195

(2nd ed.1999)

GURDIP SINGH, Commentary on Environmental law, 3rd ed.,2024

JONATHAN NASH, STANDING AND THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, Columbia Law

Review, Vol. 108, 2008

M.P. JAIN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, JUSTICE JASTI CHELAMESWAR, JUSTICE

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, 8th ed., 2018.

O. McIntyre, & T Mosedale,. THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AS A NORM OF

CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW, Journal of Environmental Law, 9(2) (1997)

P. LEELAKRISHNAN, Commentary on environmental law, 5th ed., 2019.

4
 R. STECH, A CARROT AND STICK APPROACH: AN ANALYSIS OF THE UK
GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUDICIAL REVIEW, JOURNAL OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, Vol. 15 (2), 2013

SHYAM DIVAN & ARMIN ROSENCRANZ, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY IN

INDIA, 2nd ed., Oxford India Paperback

CASE LAWS

AIR INDIA STATUTORY CORPORATION VS UNITED LABOR UNION, 1997 (9) SCC 377
AP POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v M.V. NAYUDU, 1999 (2) SCC 718
ARAVALI GOLF CLUB V. CHANDER HASS, 2008 (1) SCC 683
BANWASI SEWA ASHRAM V STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 1986 (4) SCC 753
BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA BOMBAY, AIR 1991
BOM 301
BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG. CO. LTD. (3) V. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP, 266 (2)
SCC 434
DEEP CHAND VS UTTAR PRADESH, AIR 1959 S.C. 648
GOA FOUNDATION VS DIKSHA HOLDINGS (P) LTD, 2001 (2) SCC 97
GOA FOUNDATION AND OTHERS V KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION AND ORS, 1992 SCC
G SUNDARARAJAN VS UNION OF INDIA, 2013 (6) SCC 620
ONLINE BOM. 205
INTELLECTUALS FORUM VS STATE OF A.P, 2006 (3) SCC 549
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) V. C. KENCHAPPA & OTHERS,
2006 (6) SCC 371
M.C. MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA, 1986 (2) SCC 176
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, 2000 (10) SCC 664
ND JAYAL AND ANR V. UNION OF INDIA, (2004) 9 S.C.C. 362
RE M. THOMAS,1976 (2) SCC 310
RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 1986 SUPP 517
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA, 2013 (4) SCC 575
VELLORE CITIZENS’ WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA, 1996 (5) SCC 647

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel for the appellant has approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Article 226 of the Constitution of Indrika, states that High Courts have the power to
issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other rights.
The counsel for respondent humbly submits to jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Indrika, an emerging industrial country with rich ecosystem, whose union government has
undertaken a development initiative with Eastern Industrial Corridor (EIC) to catalyse economic growth by
creating large scale industrial parks. Jhansapura, is a state participating in this have earmarked an area near
“Chandrapura Wetlands” which is a protected wetland, for the establishment of a significant industrial
hub. Chandrapura wetlands are famous for their biodiversity and are home to various migratory birds. These
wetlands are protected under Article 48A of constitution which directs the State to endeavour to protect and
improve the environment, as well as under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

2. The decision to establish the industrial hub has sparked a heated debate between the state's government
and environmental activists. The state government emphasizes the potential economic benefits of the
project, highlighting its promise to create 15,000 jobs, significantly reduce unemployment, and stimulate
economic activity in Jhansapura. It views the industrial park as a critical step toward regional development
and economic self-sufficiency. The Union Government, supporting the project, has assured that industries
operating within the hub will adhere to strict environmental compliance measures to mitigate potential
ecological damage.

3. On the other hand, environmental activists have raised serious concerns about the adverse ecological
impact of the project. They argue that the industrial expansion poses a direct threat to the fragile ecosystem
of the wetlands, which could lead to the endangerment of migratory bird species, depletion of fish
populations, and disruption of water sources critical to local agriculture. Multiple independent
environmental studies corroborate these concerns, warning of potentially irreversible damage to the wetland
ecosystem should the project proceed.

4. Due to ongoing controversy PIL (Public interest litigation) has been filed in high court. The
petitioners contend that the establishment of the industrial hub violates constitutional mandates relating to
environmental protection, particularly under Article 48A, which mandates the State to protect and improve
the environment, and Article 51A(g), which imposes a fundamental duty on citizens to protect the natural
environment. They further argue that the principles of sustainable development and intergenerational equity,
enshrined in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, are being undermined.

5. The respondents, representing the Union and State Governments, assert that socio-economic
development and environmental protection can be balanced through technological solutions and stringent
compliance with environmental regulations. They argue that economic progress, as envisioned in the EIC
7
initiative, is indispensable for the holistic development of regions like Jhansapura, which suffer from
unemployment and underdevelopment. The case raises important questions about the interplay between
constitutional mandates on environmental protection and the imperatives of socio-economic development. It
also brings to the forefront the judiciary's role in enforcing sustainable development principles through
judicial review.

8
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the establishment of the industrial hub violates the constitutional environmental protection
mandates under Article 48Aand Article 51A(g).

2. Whether balancing socio-economic development with environmental protection creates

constitutional tensions.

3. Whether sustainable development principles can be enforced through judicial review.

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL HUB VIOLATES THE

CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MANDATES UNDER ARTICLE
48AAND ARTICLE 51A(G).
The establishment of an industrial hub near a wetland does not violate Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the
Constitution, as these provisions mandate responsible environmental stewardship rather than an absolute
prohibition on development. Courts have upheld the principle of sustainable development, balancing
industrial growth with environmental protection. The project ensures compliance with precautionary
measures, employs green technology, and promotes socio-economic welfare by generating employment.
Judicial precedents highlight the necessity of industrialization for economic progress while emphasizing
environmental safeguards.

II. WHETHER BALANCING SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WITH ENVIRONMENT

PROTECTION CREATES CONSTITUTIONAL TENSIONS.
Balancing socioeconomic development with environmental protection does not create constitutional
tensions; rather, both must coexist harmoniously. The State is constitutionally empowered under Articles 38,
39, and 41 to promote welfare while ensuring environmental sustainability (Articles 48A, 51A(g)). Courts
have upheld the necessity of balancing development with ecological concerns. The establishment of an
industrial hub aligns with these principles, generating employment, reducing economic disparity, and
promoting sustainable growth.

III. WHETHER SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES CAN BE ENFORCED THROUGH

JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Sustainable development is a policy goal, not a justiciable right, and cannot be enforced through judicial
review. DPSPs under Article 37 are non-enforceable, limiting judicial intervention. Courts must avoid
judicial overreach and respect separation of powers. Strict enforcement may hinder economic growth,
requiring adaptive governance strategies instead of rigid judicial mandates.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 : Whether the establishment of the industrial hub violates the constitutional
environmental protection mandates under Article 48Aand Article 51A(g).

It is humbly submitted by the counsel on behalf of respondent before this honorable court that the
establishment of industrial hub in the present case may raise environmental concerns, however if
appropriately assessed through the lens of constitutional principles, environmental regulations and
sustainable development, does not violate the constitutional mandates of article 48-A and article 51
A (g) of the constitution.

1.1 INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 48-A AND ARTICLE 51-A(g): -

1.1.1 ARTICLE 48-A: -

The state shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest
and wildlife of the country.

That this provision is directive in nature and does not impose an absolute prohibition on
industrial development near ecologically sensitive areas. Instead, it mandates a balanced
approach, where environmental protection is harmonized with economic growth.

In the case BANWASI SEWA ASHRAM V STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1, the supreme court
seek to draw balance between preservation of environment and sustainable development. The
courts have to adjust and reconcile between the imperatives of preservation of the
environment and development of the country.

1
BANWASI SEWA ASHRAM V STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 1986 (4) SCC 753

11
 1.1.2 ARTICLE 51-A(g): -

It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living
creatures.

That this provision applies primarily to citizens rather than the State. Moreover, it does not
prohibit industrialization but emphasizes a duty towards environmental protection.

1.1.3 OUTCOME OF INTERPRETATION: -

That it is humbly submitted by the counsel that through the interpretation it can be concluded
that both the articles 48-A and 51A(g) does not inherently bar the concept of
industrialization, but rather urges responsible environmental stewardship. Thus, in the
incumbent case, the act of govt. is not violative of the articles 48-A and 51-A(g) as the
process of establishment claimed to be undertaken only after ensuring all the necessary
precautionary measures.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES CAN BE TAKEN TO

ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 48-A AND 51-A(g): -

That it is submitted that no development project can take place without affecting the environment,
thus if the environmental protection will be considered at the cost of development, it may lead to
economic tensions such as underdevelopment and unemployment. Thus, to balance industrial
development with environmental protection precautionary measures should be taken and
technological solution should be referred rather than putting a complete ban on the project and the
compliance with such measures should be ensured so that both development and environment may
go hand in hand.

12
 1.2.1 ENSURING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: -

In INTELLECTUALS FORUM VS STATE OF A. P2., the supreme court state that the need for
sustainable development cannot be ignored.

That it is humbly submitted that Public Interest Litigation has played a crucial role in the
judicial implementation of sustainable development, which insists on the balanced synthesis
of developmental and environmental imperatives.

In the case VELLORE CITIZENS’ WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA 3, a writ petition
was filed by way of public interest litigation alleging that untreated affluents entered river
palar and resulted in the pollution of its water. The supreme court refused to accept the
traditional concept that development and ecology were opposed to each other and projected
the relevance and importance of sustainable development, which during the two decades from
Stockholm conference 1972 to Rio conference 1992, had emerged as a viable concept to
eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life within the carrying capacity of
ecosystem. The supreme court emphatically held that sustainable development as a balancing
concept between ecology and development has been accepted as a part of customary
international law. Thus, it is submitted that in the present case at hand, “sustainable
development” is the need of the hour as imposing a complete ban on the establishment of
industrial hub would not be an ideal decision as it would bar the citizens of the respective
area who are suffering with unemployment to get employment opportunities.

1.2.2 APPLICATION OF PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: -

In VELLORE CITIZENS’ WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA4, the supreme court held
that “precautionary principle” and “polluter pays principle” constituted fundamental
principles of environmental law and state that these two principles and the special concept of
onus of proof have merged and govern the law of the country as is clear from articles 48-A
and 51-A(g) of the constitution.

The precautionary principle plays a significant role in determining whether the

development process is sustainable or not. The precautionary principle mandates that EIA

2
INTELLECTUALS FORUM VS STATE OF A.P, 2006 (3) SCC 549
3
VELLORE CITIZENS’ WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA, 1996 (5) SCC 647
4
VELLORE CITIZENS’ WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA, 1996 (5) SCC 647

13
 should be carried out not only at the time of the commencement of the development
project but also during the time of operation of project. EIA is a technique to ensure that the
likely effects of developmental activity on the environment are taken into consideration
before the developmental activity is authorized to proceed. Thus, in the present case at hand,
precautionary principle should be applied.

That it is humbly submitted that in the present case at hand, establishment of

Industrial hubs shall boost economic growth, employment, and infrastructure, fulfilling the
State’s obligation to ensure socio-economic progress, and since the government emphasised
on the technological solutions to mitigate environmental harm, thus by the use of green
technology, industries can operate without significant environmental damage, thus upholding
the concept of sustainable development.

1.2.3 ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH ESSENTIAL PRECAUTIONARY

MEASURES: -

That it is submitted before the honourable court that it can be implied from the statement of
facts, that the govt. is ready to ensure compliance with all the principles of sustainable
development, and that in many cases of supreme court, it was held that if the industries are
ensuring compliance with the principles of sustainable development, it does not violate any
right of the citizens nor it contradicts the duty of state towards environment.

In STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA 5, The Supreme Court

permitted the operation of Sterlite's copper smelting plant in Tamil Nadu, subject to stringent
environmental safeguards and continuous monitoring to ensure adherence to sustainable
development principles.

It is submitted that ensuring compliance with precautionary principle ensure that industrial
projects incorporate mitigation measures rather than being outright prohibited. In the
incumbent case at hand, the govt. actions are in compliance with the precautionary principles
as they are claiming to ensure all the preventive measures necessary to curb environmental
damage.

5
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA, 2013 (4) SCC 575

14
 In RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA, DEHRADUN V. U.P6., the court
reiterated that mining activity has to be permitted to the extent it is necessary in the interest of
the defence of the country or to conserve foreign exchange. Thus, in the incumbent case at
hand, instead of striking a complete ban on the project, the court may restrict the emissions
from the industries to a certain extent.

In M.C. MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA7, the supreme court said that we cannot possibly
adopt a policy of not having any chemical or other hazardous industry merely because they
pose hazard to the community. Industries even if hazardous have to be setup since they are
essential for economic development and for advancement of wellbeing of the people. We can
only hope to reduce the element of hazard or risk to the community by taking all necessary
measures for locating such industries in a manner which would pose least risk or danger to
the community and maximizing safety requirements in such industries. Thus, in the present
case at hand the establishment of the industrial hub must be allowed if all the necessary
precautions and care are undertaken and efficient technological solutions are been applied in
order to curb environmental harm.

1.3 STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: -

That the council emphasizes on striking a balance between industrial development and environment
protection as otherwise, the former might be prioritized at the cost of the latter and vice versa. Thus,
a balance must be maintained so that both may go hand in hand.

In the case, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) V. C.

KENCHAPPA & OTHERS8, the court upheld the importance of industrial development while
emphasizing the importance of sustainable development. The court emphasized on the need to ensure
balance between industrial expansion and environmental sustainability.

6
RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA, DEHRADUN V. U.P, 1986 SUPP SCC 517
7
M.C. MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA, 1986 (2) SCC 176
8
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) V. C. KENCHAPPA & OTHERS, 2006 (6) SCC 371

15
 In GOA FOUNDATION VS DIKSHA HOLDINGS (P) LTD9, a PIL was initiated against the
construction of a hotel/ beach resort at Nagorcem beach, goa as it would disturb the environmental
equilibrium and biodiversity in the coastal area. The supreme court attempted to strike a balance
between environment and development and held that no activities which would ultimately lead to
unscientific and unsustainable development and ecological destruction should at all be allowed and
the courts must scrupulously try to protect the ecology and environment and shoulder greater
responsibility. However, the environmental clearance of the central govt was obtained and the court
did not find any illegality in the grant of environmental clearances by the govt of India as it was done
in compliance with the necessary preventive measures.

In the present case at hand, the demands of the environmentalist to completely ban the establishment
of industrial hub in that area would go against the direction given in the case BOMBAY
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA10, the Court held that
environmental issues are relevant and deserve consideration. But the needs of the environment
require to be balanced with the needs of the Community at large and the needs of developing
countries.

In ND JAYAL AND ANR V. UNION OF INDIA,11 the second Tehri Dam case, the Supreme Court
said that “the right to development cannot be treated as a mere right to economic betterment or
cannot be limited to as a misnomer to simple construction activities. Right to development
encompasses much more than economic wellbeing, and includes within its definition the guarantee
of fundamental human rights. The right to development includes the whole spectrum of civil,
cultural, economic, political and social process, for the improvement of peoples' wellbeing and
realization of their full potential.

In BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG. CO. LTD. (3) V. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
GROUP12 the supreme court after referring to a large number of decisions rightly stated that whereas
the need to protect the environment is priority, it is also necessary to promote development. The
court observed that the development of the doctrine of sustainable development indeed is a welcome
feature but while emphasizing the need of ecological impact, a delicate balance between it and the
necessity for development must be struck, whereas it is not possible to ignore the dire need which the
society urgently requires.

9
GOA FOUNDATION VS DIKSHA HOLDINGS (P) LTD, 2001 (2) SCC 97
10
BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA BOMBAY, AIR 1991 BOM 301
11
ND JAYAL AND ANR V. UNION OF INDIA, (2004) 9 S.C.C. 362
12
BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG. CO. LTD. (3) V. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP, 266 (2) SCC 434

16
 Thus, in the incumbent case at hand, since the state ensures to take all the precautionary measures,
the court may adhere to ensure the strict compliance of environmental measures rather than complete
shutdown, as the potential benefit arising due to project has to be taken into consideration.

1.4 BONA FIDE ACTIONS LEADING POSITIVE SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACTS:-

That it humbly submitted in the court that establishment of the industrial hub has innumerous
sociological benefits to the citizens at large. As explicit from the statement of facts, the state was
vigorously dealing with the issues of underdevelopment and unemployment, it poses an imminent
need of such initiative to combat such issues for the benefit of public at large.

1.4.1 BONA FIDE INTENTIONS: -

That as explicitly mentioned in the statement of facts that the region was facing issues
related to unemployment and underdevelopment, thus the actions of government proved to be
bona fide as establishment of industry in the respective area would help the citizen to tackle
the issues and the job opportunities created due to the establishment would serve the public
interest at large.

1.4.2 PUBLIC INTEREST IS BEING SERVED AS CREATION OF JOB

OPPORTUNITIES: -

The actions of state are serving the public interest at large by setting up industrial hub,
state is creating 15000 jobs with the aim of boosting economic activity in the Jhansapura
region which will help in mitigating the unemployment and underdevelopment. This will help
citizen to live their life with dignity as people will get equal opportunity in employment
which will help them receive adequate livelihood and greater access to education.

In GOA FOUNDATION AND OTHERS V KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION

AND ORS,13 the Bombay high court emphasized that the Courts are bound to take into
consideration the comparative hardship which the people in the region will suffer by stalling
the project of great public utility. No development is possible without some adverse effect on
the ecology and environment but the projects of public utility cannot be abandoned and it is
necessary to adjust the interest of the people as well as the necessity to maintain the

13
GOA FOUNDATION AND OTHERS V KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION AND ORS, 1992 SCC ONLINE BOM. 205

17
 environment. The balance has to be struck between the two interests and this exercise
must be left to the persons who are familiar and specialized in the field.

Thus, the initiative of establishment of industrial hub can be said to be done in a bona
fide manner and since it creates innumerous job opportunities, it aims to serve the public
interest at large.

1.5 ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIAL HUB FULFILLS THE MANDATE OF

ARTICLE 19(1)(g) and 39(a): -

The counsel contends that the accomplishment of this project may ultimately fulfils the mandate of
article 39(a) align with the provision of article 19(1)(g).

ARTICLE 19(1)(g): -

Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.

1(g)All citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business.

ARTICLE 39(a): -

The state shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing-(a)that the citizens, men and women
equally, have the right to an adequate means to livelihood.

That it is humbly submitted that the state actions of creating an industrial hub in an area dealing with
the issues of unemployment fulfils the mandate of article 39(a) as it obligates the state to provide
adequate livelihood to the citizens and the establishment of the industrial hub may provide in
numerous job opportunities and would help to deal with the problem of underdevelopment and
unemployment.

18
 ISSUE 2: - Whether balancing socio-economic development with environment protection
creates constitutional tensions.

It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that balancing socioeconomic development with
environment protection does not create constitutional tensions as economic growth is not the
antithesis of environment protection but a condition underlying it. Socioeconomic development and
Environment protection are not to be viewed as opposite to each other, but rather they are to be
balanced and go hand in hand.

2.1 State is constitutionally empowered to promote socio economic development: -

That it is submitted that the strategic use of article 38 article 39 and article 41 in compliance with
article 48A and 51A(g) can balance the socio-economic growth and environmental protection as the
demands and necessities of the citizens may be fulfilled that too without causing immense harm to
environment.

Article 38 of the Constitution empowers the State to secure a social order for the promotion of
welfare of the people (1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and
protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall
inform all the institutions of the national life. The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the
inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities,
not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or
engaged in different vocations.

Article 39 of the Indian constitution, the state shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing-
(a)that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means to livelihood.
(b)that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as
best to sub serve the common good (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in
the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment (d) that there is equal
pay for equal work for both men and women.(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and
women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic
necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength.

19
 (f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in
conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation
and against moral and material abandonment.

Article 41 of the Indian Constitution, The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and
development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public
assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of
undeserved want.

2.1.1: - Fundamental Economic Right (Article 39): -

Thus, it is submitted that provided the respective provisions, the state is empowered to make
laws and Article 39(a) and- (c) emphasize that adequate means of livelihood should be
provided to the citizens and that the wealth should not be concentrated. As per the factual
matrix, the state promises to create 15000 jobs through the establishment of industrial hub,
which would further mitigate economic disparity to a certain extent. Further keeping the
actions in compliance with articles 48-A and 51-A(g) which emphasizes preservation of
environment, it ensures that the development is not taking place at the cost of exploitation of
environment.

It was stated in the case, AIR INDIA STATUTORY CORPORATION VS UNITED LABOR
UNION14, that the goal of art.39(b) is to undertake distribution as best to sub serve the
common good. Thus, in the incumbent case, since the project was generating innumerous job
opportunities, it was serving the common interest at large.

2.1.2: Promotion of right to work (article 41): -

Further, article 41 emphasises right to work, thus the establishment of industrial hub will
create self-sufficiency, job security and would mitigate the major issue of mass migration.
Adding to this, as explicitly mention in the factual matrix, that the state is pertaining to ensure
compliance with the essential precautionary measures, thus the concept of sustainable
development is dexterously applied.

14
AIR INDIA STATUTORY CORPORATION VS UNITED LABOR UNION, 1997 (9) SCC 377

20
 Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the state is well within the constitutional principles to
promote socio-economic development and by complying with environmental regulation,
balance b/w both has been restored and creates no constitutional tensions.

2.2 NEED FOR STRIKING A BALANCE: -

That the counsel emphasizes the urgence of balancing the socio-economic development with
environmental protection as both the concepts are to be seen in the purview of each other. That it is
mandatory to maintain balance between both the concepts so that none of them may be prioritised at
the cost of the other.

In AP POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v M.V. NAYUDU15, the court mentioned that there is a need
to take into account the right of healthy environment along with the right of sustainable development
and balance them.

RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 16 was the
first case involving the issues relating to environment and ecological balance which brought into
sharp focus the conflict between development and conservation

2.2.1 Sustainable growth and Economic necessity: -

Sustainable development is a balanced synthesis of economic, ecological and social

components and in the present case at hand, the state in question is highly concerned with the
issues of underdevelopment and unemployment. Thus, the establishment of an industrial hub
in that area may help to curb the problem at hand. As this project would bring holistic
development, it would also ensure socioeconomic progress. Further it is contended that the
creation of industrial corridor would attract foreign investment and may lead to better
infrastructure which may lead to overall GDP growth of not only the state but the country at
large.

15
AP POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v M.V. NAYUDU, 1999 (2) SCC 718
16
RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 1986 SUPP 517

21
 2.2.3 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOMENT DO NOT STAND FOR ABSOLUTE
RESTRICTION:

That sustainable development itself does not stand for absolute restriction on creation of
industry, rather it advocates for regulated growth in compliance with precautional
environmental measures.

That supreme court in such as NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS17, emphasized that environmental protection and economic development should go
hand in hand.

2.2.4 TECHNOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE: -

That it is submitted that if the govt. ensures strict compliances with environmental measures
by using suitable advanced green technologies and conducting Environment Impact
Assessment (EIA), it would balance the economic demands of the state with the
environmental concerns.

Further it is submitted that undertaking measures such as afforestation, water recycling, waste
management and carbon offset programs, the ecological balance can be maintained.

2.2.5 PUBLIC INTEREST AND NATIONAL POLICY ALLIGNMENT : -

That balancing environmental concerns with the economic development, and thus
establishment of industrial hub may generate a lot of job opportunities and will improve
infrastructure and may serve the public interest at large as the state was imminently dealing
with issues of unemployment and underdevelopment.

That relying only on agrarian economy is not viable and industrialization may provide
alternatives of employment. Further, the establishment of the project aligns with the national
policies of make in Inda initiative and Atmanirbhar bharat.

17
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, 2000 (10) SCC 664

22
 ISSUE 3:- WHETHER SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES CAN BE
ENFORCED THROUGH JUDICIAL REVIEW.

It is humbly submitted that the sustainable development principles cannot be enforced through
judicial review in the court of law as sustainable development is a broad policy goal rather than a
specific legal right. While it has been incorporated into Indian jurisprudence through various cases, it
is not explicitly enshrined as a fundamental right under Part III of the Indian Constitution. Courts
often rely on Article 21 (Right to Life) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) to enforce
environmental protection, but as a matter of fact, DPSPs themselves are not justiciable under Article
37.

3.1 INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 37: -

Article 37: -

The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein
laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of
the State to apply these principles in making laws.

The explicit language of Article 37 states that Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) “shall
not be enforceable by any court”. This means that no individual or group can approach the judiciary
demanding the enforcement of DPSPs through judicial review. And since the sustainable
development principles are nowhere explicitly mention and are only in consonance with the DPSPs,
they must not be directly enforceable in the court of law through judicial review.

3.2 SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: -

That it is submitted that Judicial review is meant to enforce constitutional and statutory rights, not
broad policy goals. It primarily examines whether laws or executive actions violate fundamental
rights or exceed constitutional limits. Enforcing sustainable development as a policy goal would
require courts to dictate executive and legislative actions, which risks overstepping into the domain
of governance. Courts have recognized this limitation in cases like ARAVALI GOLF CLUB V.
CHANDER HASS18, where they emphasized judicial restraint in policymaking. If the judiciary does
not exercise restraint and over-stretches its limits there is bound to be a reaction from politicians and

18
ARAVALI GOLF CLUB V. CHANDER HASS, 2008 (1) SCC 683

23
 others. The politicians will then step in and curtail the powers, or even the independence, of the
judiciary.

Sustainable development often involves a trade-off between environmental protection and economic
growth. Judicial review is inherently limited in making policy decisions that require extensive
technical and economic considerations. Courts can interpret and enforce environmental laws but
cannot legislate or formulate policies on sustainable development.

3.3 JUDICIAL OVERREACH: -

That it is submitted that since the sustainable development principles are not specified acts but rather
policy goals, thus they are to be implemented by the legislature. Enforcing sustainable development
would expand the judiciary’s role beyond constitutional limits. Thus, interference of courts in such
matters may lead to judicial overreach and may undermine the concept of “separation of powers”.

In RE M. THOMAS19, the courts do not enforce DPSP as it doesn’t create any justiciable rights.
Similarly in the case of DEEP CHAND VS UTTAR PRADESH20, the court stated that the directive
principles guide the exercise of legislative power but not control the same.

In G SUNDARARAJAN VS UNION OF INDIA21, the appellants opposed the nuclear power plant at
kundankulam (T.N.) on grounds of safety and environment protection. The court held that
kundankulam nuclear power plant was complying with all statutory provisions, rules, regulations and
safety guidelines and standards set up by expert bodies. The courts are not to interfere with policy
decisions taken by elected representatives unless it is absolutely unreasonable, arbitrary or against
the basic structure doctrine of the constitution. The courts are concerned only with the manner in
which the policy decision is taken.

In NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS22, where the dispute was
regarding Sardar Sarovar Dam, the Supreme Court while negating the plea of the Petitioners said that
“while protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner, utmost care has to be
taken that the court does not transgress its jurisdiction. In our constitutional framework there is a
fairly clear demarcation of powers of the organs of the government. The court has come down

19
RE M. THOMAS,1976 (2) SCC 310
20
DEEP CHAND VS UTTAR PRADESH, AIR 1959 S.C. 648
21
G SUNDARARAJAN VS UNION OF INDIA, 2013 (6) SCC 620
22
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, 2000 (10) SCC 664

24
heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the court's jurisdiction. At the same
time, in exercise of its enormous power the court should not be called upon to or undertake
governmental duties or functions.

3.4 RISK OF ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN: -

That Strict judicial enforcement of sustainable development may hinder industrialization,

employment, and infrastructure projects. Industries may face uncertainty due to judicial intervention,
leading to reduced investments and economic stagnation.

That overemphasizing the enforcement of sustainable development principles, since implicit in the
DPSPs which is a positive provision, would be inefficient to curb the imminent economic issues such
as underdevelopment, unemployment and rising poverty.

3.5 CONCLUSION: -

That it is humbly submitted that sustainable strategies being a governance goal need adaptive
strategies based on scientific and economic advancements. Judicial orders are binding and rigid,
making it difficult to adjust environmental laws based on new technological developments or
economic needs.

25
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

1. DISPOSE THE PIL, ALLOW THE STATE TO ESTABLISH INDUSTRIAL HUB AND HOLD
THAT STATE HAS NOT VIOLATED CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION MANDATES UNDER ARTICLE 48A AND 51A(G).

2. HOLD THAT PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CANNOT BE ENFORCED

THROUGH JUDICIAL REVIEW.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT IT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,
EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY AND
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Sd/-

(Counsels for therespondent)

26